National Institutes Of Health Funding Research Articles

Recommendations to Sustain the Academic Mission Ecosystem at U.S. Medical Schools

Academic medical center (AMC) faculty, administrators, and leaders have the critical tasks of teaching and training the next generation of health care providers and biomedical researchers, as well as generating new knowledge that improves the health of all. In the United States, medical schools and their affiliated hospitals train remarkably high-quality physicians and scientists, and the research conducted at these institutions results in advances in health. To that end, AMCs have become essential engines for driving better health in the United States and the rest of the world; they also have become essential engines driving the economies of their respective communities and regions. The education and research missions, however, require subsidization because tuition and extramural grant funding do not cover the costs of these endeavors. This subsidization largely has come from revenues generated by AMCs' clinical endeavors. The viability of this cross-subsidization, however, is increasingly threatened in the current clinical environment. The authors of this Perspective discuss these issues in depth and provide some concrete recommendations to address these challenges. They hope to stimulate discussion and, ultimately, ensure the financial viability of U.S. AMCs-a national resource of utmost importance. Recommendations to sustain research include creating strategic biomedical research plans, developing a defined and sustained model to support National Institutes of Health funding that keeps pace with inflation, and evolving funding mechanisms. Recommendations to sustain medical education include limiting student debt, creating more cost-effective curricula, and ensuring that clinical training opportunities that meet national standards are available to students.

Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules.

We quantify the impact of scientific grant funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on patenting by pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Our paper makes two contributions. First, we use newly constructed bibliometric data to develop a method for flexibly linking specific grant expenditures to private-sector innovations. Second, we take advantage of idiosyncratic rigidities in the rules governing NIH peer review to generate exogenous variation in funding across research areas. Our results show that NIH funding spurs the development of private-sector patents: a $10 million boost in NIH funding leads to a net increase of 2.3 patents. Though valuing patents is difficult, we report a range of estimates for the private value of these patents using different approaches.

2237 From bedside to benchmarks: A physician-scientist workforce dashboard for biomedical research institutions

2237 From bedside to benchmarks: A physician-scientist workforce dashboard for biomedical research institutions

Academic Anesthesiology Career Development: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Role of Foundation for Anesthesiology Education and Research Funding.

In 1986, the American Society of Anesthesiologists created the Foundation for Anesthesiology Education and Research (FAER) to fund young anesthesiology investigators toward the goal of helping launch their academic careers. Determining the impact of the FAER grant program has been of importance. This mixed-methods study included quantitative data collection through a Research Electronic Data Capture survey and curriculum vitae (CV) submission and qualitative interviews. CVs were abstracted for education history, faculty appointment(s), first and last author peer-reviewed publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. Survey nonrespondents were sent up to 3 reminders. Interview questions elicited details about the experience of submitting a FAER grant. Quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and qualitative data were analyzed with NVivo. Of 830 eligible participants, 38.3% (N = 318) completed surveys, 170 submitted CVs, and 21 participated in interviews. Roughly 85% held an academic appointment. Funded applicants were more likely than unfunded applicants to apply for National Institutes of Health funding (60% vs 35%, respectively; P < .01), but the probability of successfully receiving an National Institutes of Health grant did not differ (83% vs 85%, respectively; P = .82). The peer-reviewed publication rate (publications per year since attending medical school) did not differ between funded and unfunded applicants, with an estimated difference in means (95% confidence interval) of 1.3 (-0.3 to 2.9) publications per year. The primary FAER grant mentor for over one-third of interview participants was a nonanesthesiologist. Interview participants commonly discussed the value of having multiple mentors. Key mentor attributes mentioned were availability, guidance, reputation, and history of success. This cross-sectional data demonstrated career success in publications, grants, and leadership positions for faculty who apply for a FAER grant. A FAER grant application may be a marker for an anesthesiologist who is interested in pursuing a physician-scientist career.

Institutional Collaboration in Plastic Surgery Research: A Solution to Resource Limitations.

Background:The current climate of health care reform and research funding restrictions presents new challenges for academic plastic surgery. Collaboration with private enterprise has been associated with greater research productivity in the general biomedical literature. This study seeks to analyze publication trends in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) to evaluate any changes in institutional collaboration over time.Methods:Bibliographic data were retrospectively analyzed for all original research and discussion articles published in PRS from 2012 to 2016. The institutional affiliation for each publication was characterized from its author list as solely academic, private, government, or combinations of these (defined here as “institutional collaborations”). Annual National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data were also collected over the same period, and associations were analyzed by linear regression.Results:In total, 2,595 publications were retrieved from PRS between 2012 and 2016, of which 2,027 (78.1%) originated solely from academic institutions and 411 (15.8%) from institutional collaborations. Although the proportion of academic-only publications decreased from 82% to 74%, the proportion of institutional collaborations increased from 10% to 20% (P = 0.038). Concurrently, NIH funding declined from $33.4 billion to a low of $30.7 billion, which was associated with the decreasing proportion of academic-only publications (P = 0.025) and increasing proportion of institutional collaborations (P = 0.0053).Conclusions:Traditional sources of academic research funding have been restricted during the politically and financially tumultuous recent years. With no signs of improving access to financial resources from the NIH, academic plastic surgeons may consider diversifying their institutional partnerships to continue pioneering advances in the field.

National Institutes of Health Funding for Tobacco Control: 2006 and 2016.

The study objective was to describe and compare changes in newly funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related awards between fiscal year (FY) 2006 and FY2016. Secondary analysis of NIH data. National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was used. National Institutes of Health tobacco-related awards newly funded during FY2006 and FY2016. Search terms included tobacco, smoking, nicotine, secondhand smoke, and e-cigarettes. Grants and funding amounts were retrieved. We calculated frequency distributions to determine the number and percentage of total NIH grants funded overall and by specific institute, and inflation-adjusted total and median funding amounts. We computed percentage differences in number of new grants, funding amounts, and percentage of funding allocated overall, and by institute. There was a 187% increase in the percentage of total NIH funding allocated to new tobacco-related awards from 0.09% in FY2006 to 0.25% in FY2016. Total number of awards increased by 67% in FY2016 (n = 144; $56 015 931) compared to FY2006 (n = 86; $22 076 987), and there was a 154% increase in inflation-adjusted total funding for tobacco control. The top funding institutes were National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Cancer Institute; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was third in FY2006; and National, Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in FY2016. Research grants were the most frequently funded. Smoking cessation was a common topic area and increased by 64%. NIH funding is critical for advancing the science of nicotine and tobacco research.

Funding Support and Principal Investigator Leadership of Oncology Clinical Trials Using Radiation Therapy

Sources of funding and principal investigator (PI) leadership for clinical trials using radiation therapy (RT) are not well characterized but are important mediators of innovation, particularly because funding for trials from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has decreased and industry funding has increased. We sought to determine characteristics of trials using RT that are associated with industry funding, NIH funding, and radiation oncologist (RO) PI leadership. www.ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for all open, interventional trials that administered RT. Logistic regression was used to identify associations between trial characteristics, receipt of funding type (NIH, industry, or other), and PI leadership. The authors identified 1469 oncology trials, of which 41% were based in the United States, 56% were based internationally, and 3% were based in the United States and internationally. Of these, 22% were RT monotherapy, 53% were bimodality (40% RT + drug, 13% RT + surgery), and 24% were trimodality. Although ROs led 60% of all trials, industry-sponsored trials were significantly less likely to have RO PIs (35% RO vs 65% non-RO PI; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.73), to fund trials that did not incorporate drug therapy (aOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.10-0.35), or to fund phase III trials (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.60) because industry-sponsored trials favored smaller phase I trials. NIH-funded trials were not associated with PI type and, although not statistically significant, favored larger phase III trials (unadjusted OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.99-4.29). ROs were less likely to lead trials incorporating drug therapy (aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.41). ROs are less likely than other specialties to lead trials that use RT in combination with drug therapy or surgery and more likely to lead trials supported by nonindustry, non-NIH funding. This suggests a need for ROs to lead multimodality trials and to consider opportunities to interact with industry. As NIH resources decrease, alternative funding is needed to support innovation, particularly in in RT-alone trials.

Scholarly activity in academic plastic surgery: the gender difference

BackgroundThe number of women in medicine has grown rapidly in recent years. Women constitute over 50% of medical school graduates and hold 38% of faculty positions at United States medical schools. Despite this, gender disparities remain prevalent in most surgical subspecialties, including plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyze gender authorship trends. Materials and methodsA cross-sectional study of academic plastic surgeons was performed. Data were collected from departmental websites and online resources. National Institute of Health (NIH) funding was determined using the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database. Number of published articles and h-index were obtained from Scopus (Elsevier Inc, New York, NY). Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). ResultsA total of 814 plastic surgeons were identified in the United States. Compared to men, women had significantly fewer years in practice (P <0.001), lower academic ranks (P <0.001), and published less (P <0.001). There was no difference in the number of PhD degrees between genders; women with PhDs published less than men with PhDs (P = 0.04). 5.1% of women and 6.9% of men received NIH funding during their career (P = 0.57). There was no gender difference in scholarly output among NIH-funded surgeons. Overall, years in practice, academic rank, chief/program director title, advanced degrees, and NIH funding all positively correlated with academic productivity. ConclusionsThis study identifies significant gender disparities in scholarly productivity among plastic surgeons in academia. Future efforts should focus on improving gender equality and eliminating barriers to academic development.

Academic Influence and Its Relationship to Industry Payments in Orthopaedic Surgery.

The Hirsch index (h-index) quantifies research publication productivity for an individual, and has widely been considered a valuable measure of academic influence. In 2010, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) was introduced as a way to increase transparency regarding U.S. physician-industry relationships. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between industry payments and academic influence as measured by the h-index and number of publications among orthopaedic surgeons. We also examined the relationship of the h-index to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. The h-indices of faculty members at academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs were obtained using the Scopus database. The PPSA web site was used to abstract their 2014 industry payments. NIH funding data were obtained from the NIH web site. Mann-Whitney U testing and Spearman correlations were used to explore the relationships. Of 3,501 surgeons, 78.3% received nonresearch payments, 9.2% received research payments, and 0.9% received NIH support. Nonresearch payments ranged from $6 to $4,538,501, whereas research payments ranged from $16 to $517,007. Surgeons receiving NIH or industry research funding had a significantly higher mean h-index and number of publications than those not receiving such funding. Surgeons receiving nonresearch industry payments had a slightly higher mean h-index and number of publications than those not receiving these kinds of payments. Both the h-index and the number of publications had weak positive correlations with industry nonresearch payment amount, industry research payment amount, and total number of industry payments. There are large differences in industry payment size and distribution among academic surgeons. The small percentage of academic surgeons who receive industry research support or NIH funding tend to have higher h-indices. For the overall population of orthopaedic surgery faculty, the h-index correlates poorly with the dollar amount and the total number of industry research payments. Regarding nonresearch industry payments, the h-index also appears to correlate poorly with the number and the dollar amount of payments. These results are encouraging because they suggest that industry bias may play a smaller role in the orthopaedic literature than previously thought.

Institutional NIH Research Funding and a Culture of Support for Family Medicine-Their Relationship to Family Medicine Specialty Choice.

The United States suffers from a low proportion of medical students pursuing family medicine (FM). Our objective was to examine institutional characteristics consistent with a focus on National Institutes of Health (NIH) research, institutional support for FM education, and the proportion of medical students choosing FM. The 2015 CERA Survey of Family Medicine Clerkship Directors was merged with institutional NIH funding data from 2014 and medical student specialty choice in 2015. Institutional educational support was operationalized as (1) clerkship director's perception of medical school environment toward FM, and (2) amount of negative comments about FM made by faculty in other departments. The outcome was the percentage of students selecting FM. Bivariate statistics were computed. As NIH funding increases, the proportion of students entering FM decreases (r=-.22). Institutions with higher NIH funding had lower clerkship director perceptions of medical school support toward FM (r=-.38). Among private institutions, the negative correlation between NIH funding and the proportion of students entering FM strengthens to r=-.48, P=.001. As perceptions of support for FM increase, the proportion of students entering FM increase (r=.47). Among private schools, perceptions of support toward family medicine was strongly positively correlated with the proportion of students entering FM (r=.72, P=.001). Higher institutional NIH funding is associated with less support for FM and lower proportions of students choosing FM. These issues appear to be even more influential in private medical schools. Understanding how to integrate the goals of NIH-level research and increasing primary care workforce so that both can be achieved is the next challenge.

Trends in Health Disparities, Health Inequity, and Social Determinants of Health Research

The theoretical landscape of health disparities research now emphasizes health inequities and the role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in creating and perpetuating them. Whether National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding patterns reflect this theoretical shift is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the National Institute of Nursing Research's (NINR) funding for research focused on health disparities, health inequities, and SDOH, relative to other key NIH institutes. Data on 32,968 projects funded by NINR, the National Cancer Institute, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) during the years 2000 through 2016 were downloaded from NIH RePORTER; those with health disparities, health inequity, or SDOH terms used in the abstract were identified. Descriptive statistics and a general linear model approach were used to assess differences in cumulative project counts and funding proportions, and funding trends over time. Overall, funding for health disparities projects was 14-19 times greater than for health inequity and SDOH projects and was more concentrated in centers and institutional training than in individual research projects. NINR's proportion of funding for disparities projects was consistently greater than that of the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but not for inequities and SDOH projects. NIMHD's proportion of funding for disparities, and inequities and SDOH projects (combined) was 2-30 times greater than that of other institutes. Over the 16-year period, funding for disparities, inequity, and SDOH projects each increased (all ps < .05); however, growth in inequities and SDOH funding was not evident in more recent years. Funding for projects focused on health equities and the SDOH lag behind theoretical shifts in the broader health disparities research arena. With the exception of NIMHD, there is a disconnect between funding for projects with a disparities orientation in institutional training and center projects relative to individual research projects. These trends have implications for nurse scientists seeking NIH funding to support health equity-oriented research.

How academically productive are endocrine surgeons in the United States?

BackgroundMany surgical departments in the United States lack endocrine surgery faculty. Although endocrine surgeons can provide worthwhile clinical services, it is unclear how they contribute to the overall academic mission of the department. The present study aims to evaluate the academic productivity of endocrine surgeons, as defined by the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) membership, when compared with other academic surgical faculty. Materials and methodsAn established database of 4081 surgical department faculty was used for this study. This database includes surgical faculty of the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded universities and faculty from five outstanding hospital-based surgical departments. Academic metrics including publication, citations, H-index, and NIH funding were obtained using publically available data from websites. The AAES membership status was gathered from the online membership registry. ResultsA total of 110 AAES members were identified in this database, accounting for 2.7% of this population. Overall, the AAES members outperformed other academic surgical faculty with respect to publications (66 ± 94 versus 28 ± 91, P < 0.001), publication citations (1430 ± 3432 versus 495 ± 2955, P < 0.001), and H-index (19 ± 18 versus 10 ± 13, P < 0.001). In addition, the AAES members were more likely to have former/current NIH funding and hold divisional or departmental leadership positions than their non-AAES member colleagues. ConclusionsBased on these data, the AAES members excelled with respect to publications, citations, and research funding compared with nonendocrine surgical faculty. These results demonstrate that endocrine surgeons can contribute enormously to the overall academic mission. Therefore, more surgical departments in the United States should consider establishing an endocrine surgery program.

Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study.

The “publish or perish” incentive drives many researchers to increase the quantity of their papers at the cost of quality. Lowering quality increases the number of false positive errors which is a key cause of the reproducibility crisis. We adapted a previously published simulation of the research world where labs that produce many papers are more likely to have “child” labs that inherit their characteristics. This selection creates a competitive spiral that favours quantity over quality. To try to halt the competitive spiral we added random audits that could detect and remove labs with a high proportion of false positives, and also improved the behaviour of “child” and “parent” labs who increased their effort and so lowered their probability of making a false positive error. Without auditing, only 0.2% of simulations did not experience the competitive spiral, defined by a convergence to the highest possible false positive probability. Auditing 1.35% of papers avoided the competitive spiral in 71% of simulations, and auditing 1.94% of papers in 95% of simulations. Audits worked best when they were only applied to established labs with 50 or more papers compared with labs with 25 or more papers. Adding a ±20% random error to the number of false positives to simulate peer reviewer error did not reduce the audits’ efficacy. The main benefit of the audits was via the increase in effort in “child” and “parent” labs. Audits improved the literature by reducing the number of false positives from 30.2 per 100 papers to 12.3 per 100 papers. Auditing 1.94% of papers would cost an estimated $15.9 million per year if applied to papers produced by National Institutes of Health funding. Our simulation greatly simplifies the research world and there are many unanswered questions about if and how audits would work that can only be addressed by a trial of an audit.

Identifying Sources of Funding That Contribute to Scholastic Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgeons.

Scholastic productivity has previously been shown to be positively associated with National Institute of Health (NIH) grants and industry funding. This study examines whether society, industry, or federal funding contributes toward academic productivity as measured by scholastic output of academic plastic surgeons. Institution Web sites were used to acquire academic attributes of full-time academic plastic surgeons. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database, NIH reporter, the Plastic Surgery Foundation (PSF), and American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS) Web sites were accessed for funding and endowment details. Bibliometric data of each surgeon were then collected via Scopus to ascertain strengths of association with each source. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify significant contributors to high scholastic output. We identified 935 academic plastic surgeons with 94 (10.1%), 24 (2.6%), 724 (77.4%), and 62 (6.6%) receiving funding from PSF, AAPS, industry, and NIH, respectively. There were positive correlations in receiving NIH, PSF, and/or AAPS funding (P < 0.001), whereas industry funding was found to negatively associate with PSF (r = -0.75, P = 0.022) grants. The NIH R award was consistently found to be the most predictive of academic output across bibliometrics, followed by the AAPS academic scholarship award. Conventional measures of academic seniority remained predictive across all measures used. Our study demonstrates for the first time interactions between industry, federal, and association funding. The NIH R award was the strongest determinant of high scholastic productivity. Recognition through AAPS academic scholarships seemed to associate with subsequent success in NIH funding.

Surgeon Scientists Are Disproportionately Affected by Declining NIH Funding Rates

Obtaining National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding over the last 10 years has become increasingly difficult due to a decrease in the number of research grants funded and an increase in the number of NIH applications. National Institutes of Health funding amounts and success rates were compared for all disciplines using data from NIH, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), and Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Next, all NIH grants (2006 to 2016) with surgeons as principal investigators were identified using the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (NIH RePORTER), and a grant impact score was calculated for each grant based on the publication's impact factor per funding amount. Linear regression and one-way ANOVA were used for analysis. The number of NIH grant applications has increased by 18.7% (p= 0.0009), while the numbers of funded grants (p < 0.0001) and R01s (p < 0.0001) across the NIH have decreased by 6.7% and 17.0%, respectively. The mean success rate of funded grants with surgeons as principal investigators (16.4%) has been significantly lower than the mean NIH funding rate (19.2%) (p= 0.011). Despite receiving only 831 R01s during this time period, surgeon scientists were highly productive, with an average grant impact score of 4.9 per $100,000, which increased over the last 10 years (0.15 ± 0.05/year, p= 0.02). Additionally, the rate of conversion of surgeon scientist-mentored K awards to R01s from 2007 to 2012 was 46%. Despite declining funding over the last 10 years, surgeon scientists have demonstrated increasing productivity as measured by impactful publications and higher success rates in converting early investigator awards to R01s.

Electronic Residency Application Service Application Characteristics Associated with Successful Residency Matching in Neurosurgery in 2009-2016.

Resident applicants in neurosurgery often wonder what factors impact their chances of successfully matching. Using data published by the National Residency Match Program for 2009-2016, we examined which components of the Electronic Residency Application Service application correlated with successful residency matching. Data were collected from the National Residency Match Program publication Charting Outcomes in the Match from all years it was available for neurosurgery (2009, 2011, 2014, 2016). Individual factors reported (number of contiguous ranks, research projects, publications and presentations, work experiences, volunteer experiences, United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 score deciles, categorical data about Alpha Omega Alpha status, Ph.D. degree, other degree, and strength of medical school National Institutes of Health funding) were aggregated for all 3 years. Categorical data were available only for U.S. seniors. Spearman correlation and χ2 were used for ranked data and categorical data, respectively. Separate analyses were run for U.S. seniors and independent applicants. For U.S. seniors applying to neurosurgery, number of contiguous ranks, United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 scores, research projects, Alpha Omega Alpha status, and medical school top 40 National Institutes of Health funding were significantly associated with successful matching of applicants. Number of volunteer experiences was nearly statistically significant. For independent applicants, only United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 scores and number of research projects were statistically significant. This is the first study to analyze National Residency Match Program data for predictors of success in neurosurgical matching. Students applying to neurosurgery residency and their mentors should be aware of which baseline objective factors are associated with match success.

Invite your representative to work. Change the world. Here's how.

Today’s political climate can seem hostile to science. Alternative facts, climate change denial, and relabeling of actual news as fake news are discouraging phenomena for sure. But these trends make it more important than ever to engage our politicians. Take heart! There is something you can do. You can show your representatives firsthand the amazing things you do, evidence of the economic engine that your activities generate, and the real people behind the discoveries. I did, and it was fun. We invited our congressman to the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), and he accepted! For 2 hours, we explained and demonstrated efforts to cure blindness using stem cells, the medical implications of the discovery that cells can recover from the brink of death, a mosquito lab striving to eliminate insect-borne disease, and an Alzheimer’s disease laboratory. Salud Carbajal peered through a microscope and met real scientists. Before his visit, he did not know what a postdoctoral fellow was, much less what stem cells look like. When he left he knew our names, how much money we bring into his district, and how important National Institutes of Health funding and international mobility are to our enterprise. Although I live in the United States, this approach should also apply to other democratic countries. If each of us converts one representative into a science champion, we can change the world.

Mentoring, Training, and Scholarly Productivity Experiences of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Research Trainees: Do Outcomes Differ for Underrepresented Scientists?

The study aims to explore variation in scholarly productivity outcomes by underrepresented status among a diverse sample of researchers in a community-engaged training program. We identified 141 trainees from a web-based survey of researchers in the National Cancer Institute-funded, Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) (2011-2016). We conducted a series of multiple logistic regression models to estimate the effect of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-defined underrepresented status on four, self-reported, scholarly productivity outcomes in the previous 5years: number of publications (first-authored and total) and funded grants (NIH and any agency). Sixty-five percent (n = 92) indicated NIH underrepresented status. In final adjusted models, non-NIH underrepresented (vs. underrepresented) trainees reported an increased odds of having more than the median number of total publications (> 9) (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.21-8.65) and any grant funding (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.77-14.65). Reporting ≥ 1 mentors (vs. none) was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with these outcomes. The CNPC underrepresented trainees had similar success in first-authored publications and NIH funding as non-underrepresented trainees, but not total publications and grants. Examining trainees' mentoring experiences over time in relation to scholarly productivity outcomes is needed.

Analysis of National Institutes of Health Funding in Hand Surgery.

Background: Federal research dollars help investigators develop biomedical therapies for human diseases. Currently, the state of funding in hand surgery is poorly understood. This study defines the portfolio of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants awarded in hand surgery. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of hand surgeons in the US. Faculty members of accredited hand surgery fellowships and/or members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand were queried in the NIH RePORT database for awards obtained during 2005-2015. Results: Of 2317 hand surgeons queried, only 18 obtained an NIH grant (0.8%). Thirty-eight unique grants were identified totaling $42 197 375. R01 awards comprised the majority of funding (78.0%) while K08 awards accounted for 1.1%. The K-to-R transition rate was zero. The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease supported the most funding (65.2%), followed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (30.8%). There was no statistically significant difference in NIH funding totals with hand surgeon characteristics. Funding supported translational (46.0%), basic science (29.6%), clinical (21.0%), and education-based (3.4%) research. Peripheral nerve (33.3%) and bone and joint disease (30.1%) received the most research funding. Conclusions: Less than 1% of hand surgeons obtain NIH research grants. Of the 2 identified K08 awards, none led to a subsequent R award. Future research should identify barriers to grant procurement to design effective policies to increase NIH funding in hand surgery.

Scot Matkovich: Keep on Keeping on.

Scot Matkovich grew up close to the city of Melbourne where, as a university student, he first became fascinated with the heart. This fascination eventually took Matkovich across the globe to New York City, where in 2000, he took up a postdoctoral role at Columbia University. After two further laboratory moves—once to the University of Cincinnati and then to Washington University in St. Louis—and more than a decade of research into cardiac pathologies,1–6 Matkovich became what so many young scientists dream of: a tenure track assistant professor. But in 2016, his funding, his beloved research, and his dreams all came to an end. Scot Matkovich OK, not really. Sure, losing funding was a blow to the ego initially, Matkovich tells Circulation Research , but he was not the type to give up. And Matkovich is continuing to carve out a research career filled with rewarding collaborations, valuable discoveries, and, despite no longer running his own laboratory, considerable autonomy. Through it all, he said, he realized that you do not necessarily need to be running the show in order to make big impacts and enjoy performing on the scientific stage. Indeed, Matkovich argues, young scientists working their way up the ranks should be advised of the difficulties of becoming a group leader but not necessarily driven away from scientific research because of that. Matkovich is currently a research-track faculty member in the laboratory of Douglas Mann at Washington University in St. Louis, where he studies, among other things, heart failure and remodeling7 and the role of the cardiac innate immune system. I was a shy, nerdy sort of kid. I was always strong academically. I was good at math and really enjoyed chemistry. I devoured books of all kinds, but I was also drawn to music from …